Worst presidents of all time

Dixie said:
Slavery was not the issue, regardless of what prejudiced minds may think. Slavery was a legal practice in America, upheld by Congress and the Supreme Court, it was not illegal or unethical to own slaves for the preceding century before the Civil War. Those who did own the abundance of slaves, were located in the South because agriculture was confined mainly to the South, not because people from the South had any different beliefs in the morality of human enslavement. The North benefited greatly from Southern agriculture, from the fruits of slave labor, and never once did they instigate a boycott or embargo on slave-produced goods from the South.

If the Federal government were to implement a ban on automobiles in California and New York, citing the massive amounts of pollution caused by all of the cars on the road, and advocated confiscation of citizens cars and trucks in those states, and those citizens revolted... would that be a 'war fought over pollution?' Of course not! Although, that may be the way ignorant people chose to see it after the fact, after the US won the conflict and successfully 'emancipated' their personal property. Ignorant people might say, well, those people in California and New York just wanted to keep polluting the atmosphere! That wouldn't be an accurate assessment of the facts. The fact remains, the Civil War issue of slavery, had to do with personal property rights of individual citizens, and the 'right' of a Federal government to seize said property without compensation. Southerners did not consider slaves personal property, the US Supreme Court ruled they were! This wasn't the fault of those who happened to own slaves, it was the fault of the US Government who had condoned slavery to begin with. If human enslavement had been the overriding issue, this could have been rectified years before the Civil War, like when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

One fact that I continually point out to the ignorant, not one single Confederate soldier who fought in the Civil War, ever owned a slave.
Click to expand...

There is one problem with your argument. Southern property rights were never threatened. No one with power or influence ever called for the abolition of slavery in the South.

The GOP, who became the primary threat to slavery, by which the election of Lincoln prompted the South to secede, had a containment platform, not an abolition platform. The idea was to abolish slavery in the territories, which, not being states, did not play a role in the federal system. Upon becoming free territories, and then free states, they would over time make slavery an unworkable system. The fact of the matter is not that the South had its property rights threatened, but merely its character impuned. It took offense to the anti-slavery movement, and fueled on by the "expand or die" slogan, it seceded from the Union in order to protect its social structure for the distant future.
 
Threedee said:
There is one problem with your argument. Southern property rights were never threatened. No one with power or influence ever called for the abolition of slavery in the South.

The GOP, who became the primary threat to slavery, by which the election of Lincoln prompted the South to secede, had a containment platform, not an abolition platform. The idea was to abolish slavery in the territories, which, not being states, did not play a role in the federal system. Upon becoming free territories, and then free states, they would over time make slavery an unworkable system. The fact of the matter is not that the South had its property rights threatened, but merely its character impuned. It took offense to the anti-slavery movement, and fueled on by the "expand or die" slogan, it seceded from the Union in order to protect its social structure for the distant future.
Click to expand...

There is no problem with my argument. There is a problem with your ignorant prejudiced and bigoted viewpoint. The issue of the Civil War was not slavery, as you pretty much admitted right here, the GOP advocated containment of slavery, not the abolition of it. If Kennedy and Johnson had handled the Civil Rights protests of the early 60's in the same manner, could you say they effectively advocated for Civil Rights? If they had been content to allow Alabama and Mississippi to segregate their schools, while implementing a policy to desegregate the rest of America, would they be considered great leaders in the struggle for Civil Rights? "Containment" is a far cry from freedom and emancipation, that is the point I have been trying to get across to you for months now.
 
Dixie said:
There is no problem with my argument. There is a problem with your ignorant prejudiced and bigoted viewpoint. The issue of the Civil War was not slavery, as you pretty much admitted right here, the GOP advocated containment of slavery, not the abolition of it. If Kennedy and Johnson had handled the Civil Rights protests of the early 60's in the same manner, could you say they effectively advocated for Civil Rights? If they had been content to allow Alabama and Mississippi to segregate their schools, while implementing a policy to desegregate the rest of America, would they be considered great leaders in the struggle for Civil Rights? "Containment" is a far cry from freedom and emancipation, that is the point I have been trying to get across to you for months now.
Click to expand...

I pointed out that "property rights," as an argument, is and was complete bullshit. The reason for secession was the continuation of white supremacy in the Southern society for the forseeable future. The idea that the GOP dare to attack slavery as immoral and to impune the Southern way of life was considered intollerable. Whether you like it or not, the South seceeded exclusively over the issue of slavery, because they believed that if it did not expand then it would die. Since the Civil War was faught to preserve the Union, it was faught over slavery. If the South would have seceeded over globull warming, then it would have been a war about globull warming, etc.

Personally, I don't believe the South was worth fighting for. Severing the cancer of the South from the Union would have effectively excluded slavery from the West (which was US property). This arrangement would have effectively smothered slavery within 20 years. Also, I would have liked to see an amendment passed barring the re-entry of the South, but fat chance of that phat chance...
 
I pointed out that "property rights," as an argument, is and was complete bullshit. The reason for secession was the continuation of white supremacy in the Southern society for the forseeable future.
Click to expand...

Your stupid "white supremacy" argument is what is bullshit! Most, if not ALL, white men and women of 1864 America, were indeed WHITE FUCKING SUPREMACISTS! What do I have to do to prove this point to you? For some odd and peculiar reason, you live in this fantasy world where 1864 America was divided between those who thought blacks and whites were equal, and those who didn't! NO ONE, including most of the slaves themselves, felt that whites and blacks were "equal" in any way shape or form in 1864 America! THAT IS A FUCKING GODDAMN FACT! I'm sorry it is a fact, I wish to hell I could say that some Americans believed in racial equality and realized there was not a difference between black people and white people, but that is just not the case, and you have offered ZERO evidence to support that totally absurd fantasy!

The South fought the war over Federal aggression and interference into state affairs. Slaves WERE property, as determined NOT by the South, but by the Supreme Court of the United States of America! This was not the Southerner's fault, and you can't lay the blame for it on them! Had our Founding Fathers, nearly a century earlier, deemed that slavery was unacceptable and wrong, there would have never been slaves in the South! That didn't happen! Instead, Congress, the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the US Government, condoned, advocated, and encouraged the practice of slavery for decades, and Southern agriculturalists took advantage of the laws and purchased slaves to work the fields and provide their labor, of which the North benefited from just as much as the South.

Slaves were an issue of the Civil War because they were personal property, owned by the individuals who legally purchased them, pursuant to US LAW! Just like you and I can go out and buy a car or truck today! Nowhere in our Constitution is the Government given the "right" to seize and confiscate your personal property that you paid money for! But that is damn sure what they were going to attempt to do, and this was unacceptable to those who had huge investments in the legal property they purchased. Whether you can get that through your fucking thick head or not, I don't know, but that is the facts of the matter regarding slavery and the Civil War.

It irritates me to no end, that you, a supposedly educated person, are trying to sit here and paint 1864 America in a 2008 light, as if the North were chock full of people who vehemently opposed slavery and advocated equality for blacks in America, while the South was full of nothing but white supremacist racists who wanted to fight a war to keep slavery! You are full of shit if you really believe that crap!

The rest of your post is nothing but bigoted hatred and vile for Southerners, and I have heard enough of it from you. Stop spewing your prejudiced bigotry all over me and the rest of this board, you fucking moron, and get a damn education on history before you venture into this debate again.
 
I have to back-step from what I wrote above. While you can argue today slavery was not the cause - a sort of euphemistic looking back - all the issues leading to secession and the war have slavery as the backdrop. Many arguments prior to Lincoln's presidency were about slave free states v slave states and as such formed a mood in which the southern states felt threatened and under attack. If Lincoln hadn't won the presidency, slavery would have continued and the abolition of it would have happened some time in the future. This piece examines the feelings of the people at the time and supports slavery as the prime cause.

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

http://www.americanheritage.com/rss/articles/web/20070503-civil-war-chandra-manning-slavery.shtml
 
midcan5 said:
I have to back-step from what I wrote above. While you can argue today slavery was not the cause - a sort of euphemistic looking back - all the issues leading to secession and the war have slavery as the backdrop. Many arguments prior to Lincoln's presidency were about slave free states v slave states and as such formed a mood in which the southern states felt threatened and under attack. If Lincoln hadn't won the presidency, slavery would have continued and the abolition of it would have happened some time in the future. This piece examines the feelings of the people at the time and supports slavery as the prime cause.

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

http://www.americanheritage.com/rss/articles/web/20070503-civil-war-chandra-manning-slavery.shtml
Click to expand...

The issue of enslavement was not why the South or North fought the Civil War. If the US Government had implemented some law or policy to outlaw the practice in the 85 years preceding the war, it might be a valid argument. That didn't happen. If, in these 85 years, Congress or the Supreme Court had determined human enslavement to be wrong, unethical, abhorrent, and illegal, it might be a valid argument. That did not happen! Instead, quite the opposite happened, time and time again.

Southern interest in the new 'free states' was, they were largely the ones who would settle such territories. We have to remember, these were businessmen who sought to use the advantages available to them, one of which, was slave labor. We can look at this through the prism of today and think this was horrible, but in 1861, slaves were legal to own, buy, and sell, and the US Government condoned that. Those who pushed for the 'free states' to be 'slave states' had a vested financial interest in doing so, it had nothing to do with their sentiments toward black people. It was about business. Still, the Southern states did not secede from the Union because of western states and whether they would be 'free' or not.

Slavery may have well been "the backdrop" but the fundamental issue, the main primary reason and justification from the Confederate perspective, was that of State's Rights. Did the Federal Government have the "right" to mandate laws concerning basic property rights of individuals in the states? From a purely Constitutional standpoint, this was a legitimate argument at the time. In fact, it still remains a legitimate argument in America, and we grapple with this all of the time. What 'authority' is allowed to the Federal Government by the Constitution? From the South's perspective, this was an issue worth fighting for, and they did.

I have repeatedly said, and this is true, not a single Confederate soldier who fought in the Civil War, ever owned a slave. Most of them didn't even know someone who owned slaves. Only 2% of the population in the South, owned any substantial number of slaves. The young men who died under the Confederate flag, were not fighting to protect the institution of slavery. They were fighting for a way of government, the concept that states and people retain rights not enumerated to the Federal government. Did this include the issue of 'free states' and 'slave states'? Yes, but it was not THE reason the war was fought. It actually became "the reason" out of what Lincoln deemed "military necessity" when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. An order which actually didn't free a single slave in the North, only slaves in the South, where the Union had no control or authority. Again, had the Emancipation Proclamation freed ALL slaves, and had Lincoln issued this BEFORE the war, one could make the argument the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. That didn't happen.

Another 'argument' that is often presented is, the North fought over the issue of secession, but did you know, the State of New York actually threatened to secede from the Union over the Civil War? A little tidbit that gets lost in the debate, but it did happen. Along with Lincoln's exhaustive attempts to repatriate slaves to another country, acceptance of a 'slave state' into the Union, West Virginia, in 1863, and a litany of 'compromise' proposals by the US Government, which would have allowed slavery to exist well into the next century. So, to argue the war was fought over the issue of 'enslavement' is invalid and incorrect. It simply wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top